Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Ben]

But meanwhile, back on topic...

Hi Beebs,

It’s a damn good question, and the earliest case (or notoriety) I can find is that of Richard Loeb, who with Nathan Leopold murdered Bobby Franks in 1924. Since Leopold and Loeb were caught before they could kill again, they can’t be described as serial killers. However, there is no difference in pathology here, as this was still a murder for pleasure. Loeb injected himself into the police investigation, and outlined various “theories” to the press.

More on this rather horrible case here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_and_Loeb

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

“I didn't call you a tool; I said that your own haste had seemingly caused you to miss typos and auto-corrections that conspired to make you look like one”

Ah, so that’s how you’ve managed to remain insulting whilst adhering to the forum rules? So it’s not okay to call a fellow poster a “tool” directly, but totally fine and dandy to say that the same person’s posts make him look like one? So if I ever wanted to say, for instance, that another member’s posts made him (or HER) look like a semi-literate cyber-stalker, that’s okay and perfectly within the rules? That’s worth knowing. Unfortunately, you don’t explain why casual typos and accidental auto-corrects make the person responsible for them a “tool”, unless of course it was important to you to sneak round the rules in order to insult me, and with such originality too.

“with their uncanny imitations of the two common howlers: "towing the line" and "towed the line"

Again, it’s called an accidental auto-correct. Either that or a typo based on the fact that, “uncannily”, the “e” is next to the “w” on the keyboard. Can I be arsed to remember which one it was? No, not really. It could have been either or both. I didn’t expect for one moment that anyone would be tragic enough to start a dialogue with me about it. One thing I know for certain is that it wasn’t me deliberately writing “tow”. Incidentally, for your much-needed elucidation, people don’t generally “tow” lines – they tow things using a line (you’re welcome, in advance).

“Years ago I would have studiously avoided them, but not since I read that the stuffy outdated rule had been relaxed somewhat.”

Yeah, suuure you did.

I bet you did just that. I bet you woke up one day and thought to yourself: I’d better just read the English Language Rule Book and check to see if there are some things I’m doing, which, thanks to the general dumbing down of standards, I don’t need to do anymore. Nothing’s changed. If you’ve googled your way onto a website that says split infinitives are suddenly ok, it was probably written by someone like you, who can’t get to grips with them, and appeals to some mythical modern influence that says “Ah sod it, why bother?”. I think I might do that with underwear. Haven’t you heard, Caz? Undies are out - they’re considered poncy and indulgent these days.

“Pity you didn't come up with that explanation in the first place, before I gave you the correct meaning of the expression, knowing you would then rework what you wrote originally. I can read you like a book.”

(My emphasis.)

These are the sorts of admissions that can really creep a fellow out. I’ll admit it’s not unflattering to feel studied and scrutinised and generally dwelt-on, but you still know virtually nothing about me. You have never met me, and nor – so far as I’m aware – have you ever met anyone who has ever met me.

In this case, however, it appears your Ben-reading abilities have let you down. You have just acknowledged that the correct meaning of the expression “toeing the line” applies perfectly to my observation regarding Anderson and Bond, and yet, fascinatingly, you still claim I didn’t know what it meant when I used it in that context. Are you seriously, seriously suggesting that I used the most suitable expression possible to illustrate my point (i.e. that Anderson did not conform to the accepted wisdom of his police superiors, which has nothing to do with “towing” anything) without knowing what it meant? Think it through, please, and then I want you dazzle us all with a brand new convoluted explanation for how I somehow managed to illustrate my point successfully using the appropriate idiom….accidentally!

“I got A grades in O level Latin and English language back in 1970, many years before you were even in short trousers.”

Hearty congratulations on the O level, but I suspect that might be a problem. That’s a long time ago, and you seem to have forgotten quite a bit. Don’t feel bad about that – I’m the same with my old biology classes, and that was only in 2000. I remember xylem, phloem, something to do with a potato…and that’s about it!

I’ve been reflecting further on your David Canter observation, and I’m struggling to see where he’s supposed to have erred on the subject of the diary hoax. The “psychology” in the diary is communicated by the words the writer used, and if the gist of those words were “I want to kill prostitutes…horribly…lots of them…because I’m mad, um, and I don’t like prostitutes”, that would be consistent with the actions of a real person who really did kill several prostitutes horribly, wouldn’t it? How could even the stupidest hoaxer go wrong there? If I were to wrote: “give me celery now!!!”, that would be “spot on” for the psychology of a celery addict, but that doesn’t make it true.

Amid all this nonsense, the person I feel most sorry for is Jon, whose debating abilities you obviously have such little regard for that you feel the need to wade in and fight his battles. The flipside to that, of course, is that I’m made to feel very big and important, which I’m really not. Thanks, though, and keep at it.

[caz]

Yeah, that's right. Let's just change ancient and well established rules concerning grammar and style in order to suit Caz's shortcomings in that area. Language is indeed changing - hooray - but not according to your fascinating rule-book.

Ooh I'm so naughty, I just found this online:

http://grammar.about.com/od/rs/g/splitinfinitive.htm

So not my personal rule book then. Seems you're stuck in the 19th century, Ben, which ought to be helping you hang Hutch.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

You've already mentioned your "arse" (shudder), and now you're calling me a "tool", which besides being a personal insult of the type prohibited by the boards takes us pretty much into the gutter as far as thread content goes.

Hi Ben,

You need to take more time reading than posting. I didn't call you a tool; I said that your own haste had seemingly caused you to miss typos and auto-corrections that conspired to make you look like one, with their uncanny imitations of the two common howlers: "towing the line" and "towed the line". What you post is nobody's responsibility but your own, so don't try to shift the blame onto me and invoke rules I have not broken.

You don't understand what a split infinitive is, and you attempt to explain the gaff on the grounds that language has suddenly evolved to suit your own unique style, or lack thereof.

Well you have not yet quoted a single example where I have used one, although I am well aware when I do so and why I do so. I am also aware that they are now acceptable when the alternative would actually look clumsier. Years ago I would have studiously avoided them, but not since I read that the stuffy outdated rule had been relaxed somewhat. You need to get with it, grandad.

I used "toeing the line" in the context I outlined very carefully. My point was that Anderson was not the sort of individual to conform to any rules or to "toe the line". We may take the rule, in this case, to mean the authority represented by the police commissioner.

Yes of course you did. Pity you didn't come up with that explanation in the first place, before I gave you the correct meaning of the expression, knowing you would then rework what you wrote originally. I can read you like a book.

Yep, well Googled, that girl!

Er no, bad luck. I got A grades in O level Latin and English language back in 1970, many years before you were even in short trousers. If you need Google to work out stuff like this I'm sorry for you.

Fun indeed. Glad you agree. Neither of us will be running to teacher anytime soon then. Have a great weekend Ben. And don't forget to wipe your nose, wash behind your ears and preview your posts.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sally]

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

You can lead a man to reason, but you can't make him think

[Bridewell]

Now that's a good question, deserving of its own thread - I'll start one.

It's in the "Shades of Whitechapel" section of "Social Chat"

[Bridewell]

Do we know who would be the earliest documented killer that we know has injected themselves into an investigation as a witness?

Now that's a good question, deserving of its own thread - I'll start one.

[Hunter]

Are you to boldly question such an interpretation?

[Scott Nelson]

...from heel to tow.

Hey, isn't "heel" spelled heal?

[babybird67]

Hutchinson

he really is an enduring suspect. I was reading one of the other threads earlier about killers injecting themselves into investigations and I was thinking at the end of this thread I am going to mention Christie, then before I got to the end of it, someone had already made that point!

Do we know who would be the earliest documented killer that we know has injected themselves into an investigation as a witness?

[babybird67]

missed you too Benz

and Garry x

[Ben]

And how I've missed you, Beebs! x

[babybird67]

oh...

how I have missed the Hutch threads

[Ben]

Good grief, Ben. You could do a masterclass on digging oneself a bigger hole.

Right, your literary - errrm - "genius" (?) has r-e-a-l-l-y got me on the ropes...

Look, whatever this is, this following me around all over the place, fixating on every tiny little thing I write - lovely and all that, but what was once tremendously flattering is now a little off-putting, especially when you bring anatomy and genitalia into the discussion. You've already mentioned your "arse" (shudder), and now you're calling me a "tool", which besides being a personal insult of the type prohibited by the boards takes us pretty much into the gutter as far as thread content goes.

My "lengthy explanations" are in response to your sad, if not entirely unamusing, attempts to find fault with my writing, which are forever getting burped straight back in your face. You don't understand what a split infinitive is, and you attempt to explain the gaff on the grounds that language has suddenly evolved to suit your own unique style, or lack thereof. Then when you tried to criticise my use of the word "churlish", it transpired that you knew neither its full meaning or even the origin of the word.

""

You will therefore forgive me if I don't pay too much attention if you're ill-equipped to understand what a typo is, and how an auto-correct may affect a post, even if it isn't immediately clear - despite editing - that an error has been made. These really shouldn't be fabulously taxing concepts to embrace, but if every post I make sends you racing for the thesaurus (which you probably tear up in frustration when you realise how ill-informed you are), I'm afraid I don't hold up much hope.

That still wouldn't explain why you would have used "toeing" the line in the context of following or going along with one or other position, when it means putting one's toe on the starting line and not over it, or playing by the rules.

I used "toeing the line" in the context I outlined very carefully. My point was that Anderson was not the sort of individual to conform to any rules or to "toe the line". We may take the rule, in this case, to mean the authority represented by the police commissioner.

(Oh but Ben, in post #465 at line 72 at 2:31pm blah blah blah)

If splitting an infinitive looks clumsy it's best avoided, but there are occasions when it reads far better in a sentence than a strained alternative that tries to impress but fails.

There shouldn't be a "strained alternative" to a basic rule of grammatical construction, and if you're failing to impress, you simply need to work on it. Simple as. With yours in particular, it's very obvious how you ought to have worded the sentence in order to prevent the split infinitive.

In any case the 'rule' was just a backward nod to the Latin, where infinitives are all one word and cannot therefore be split by an adverb.

Yep, well Googled, that girl!

You've finally caught up.

Good to see.

"it was probably high time we made better use of our own infinitives and not be slaves to Latin restrictions."

Yeah, that's right. Let's just change ancient and well established rules concerning grammar and style in order to suit Caz's shortcomings in that area. Language is indeed changing - hooray - but not according to your fascinating rule-book.

Anderson was only assuming Monro's opinion was correct for the purpose of his stated conclusion.

But what influenced his stated conclusion? He didn't just conjure it up from the aether. Something led him to assume, in his absence, that Monro's conclusion was the correct one, despite having the opportunity to assume Dr. Bond's contrary opinion was correct.

You wished.

I didn't actually.

This has become too much fun.

You keep spending your days on me, and let's keep dancing here until the posts number in their thousands. It's essential to me, of course, that Hutchinson threads dominate ripper discussion, but I need your help!

Smooches

XXXXXXXXX

[Ben]

Actually, I love Kim Rossmo a little more, but I'm still fond of Canter, diary dopeyness aside!